Draft 

ADVISORY BOARD ON 

RADIATION AND WORKER HEALTH 

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health

REVIEW OF THE NIOSH SITE PROFILE FOR 

BAKER-PERKINS, SAGINAW, MICHIGAN 

DCAS-TKBS-0005 

Contract No. 200-2009-28555 

SCA-TR-SP2011-0036, Revision 1 

Prepared by 

Aris Papadopoulos 

S. Cohen & Associates 

1608 Spring Hill Road, Suite 400 

Vienna, VA 22182 

November 2011 

Disclaimer 

This document is made available in accordance with the unanimous desire of the Advisory Board on 

Radiation and Worker Health (ABRWH) to maintain all possible openness in its deliberations. However, 

the ABRWH and its contractor, SC&A, caution the reader that at the time of its release, this report is predecisional and has not been reviewed by the Board for factual accuracy or applicability within the 

requirements of 42 CFR 82. This implies that once reviewed by the ABRWH, the Board’s position may 

differ from the report’s conclusions. Thus, the reader should be cautioned that this report is for 

information only and that premature interpretations regarding its conclusions are unwarranted.
Effective Date: 

November 2, 2011 

Revision No. 

 1 (Draft)

Document No. 

SCA-TR-SP2011-0036

Page No. 

 2 of 15

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

However, this report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 

Health for factual accuracy or applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82. 

Document No. 

 SCA-TR-SP2011-0036 

Effective Date: 

 Draft – November 2, 2011 

S. COHEN & ASSOCIATES: 

Technical Support for the Advisory Board on 

Radiation & Worker Health Review of 

NIOSH Dose Reconstruction Program Revision No. 

1 (Draft) 

REVIEW OF THE NIOSH SITE PROFILE FOR 

BAKER-PERKINS, SAGINAW, MICHIGAN Page 2 of 15 

Document Reviewers: 

______________________________ Date:____________ 

John Mauro, PhD, CHP 

Supersedes: 

Rev. 0 

Project Manager: 

______________________________ Date:____________ 

John Mauro, PhD, CHP 

Reviewer: 

 Ron Buchanan

Record of Revisions 

Revision 

Number 

Effective 

Date Description of Revision 

0 (Draft) 09/15/2010 Initial issue 

1 (Draft) 10/25/2011 Review of the DCAS revised site profile for Baker-Perkins. Note that the site profile 

for Baker-Perkins was revised because NIOSH eliminated TBD-6001 as the parent 

document for this and other uranium processing site profiles, and replaced the original 

site profile for Baker-Perkins with this standalone site profile. 
Effective Date: 

November 2, 2011 

Revision No. 

 1 (Draft)

Document No. 

SCA-TR-SP2011-0036

Page No. 

 3 of 15

 This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

However, this report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 

Health for factual accuracy or applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82. 

NOTICE:

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

1.0 Statement of Purpose ...........................................................................................................4 

2.0 Introduction..........................................................................................................................5 

3.0 Review of DCAS-TKBS-0005: Observations/Findings.....................................................6 

3.1

...................................................................6 

Review of Sections 1.0 (Introduction), 2.0 (Site Description and Operational 

History), and 3.0 (Process Description)

3.2 Review of Section 4.0 (Internal Dose).....................................................................6 

3.3 Review of Section 5.0 (External Dose)....................................................................9 

3.4 Review of Section 6.0 (Occupational Medical Dose)............................................11 

3.5 Residual Contamination.........................................................................................11 

4.0 Conclusion .........................................................................................................................12 

5.0 References..........................................................................................................................13 

Attachment A: Air Sample Data from Analytical Data Sheets.....................................................14 
Effective Date: 

November 2, 2011 

Revision No. 

 1 (Draft)

Document No. 

SCA-TR-SP2011-0036

Page No. 

 4 of 15

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

However, this report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 

Health for factual accuracy or applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82. 

1.0 STATEMENT OF PURPOSE 

The purpose of this report is to provide a critical review of technical basis document (TBD) 

DCAS-TKBS-0005, Baker-Perkins (B-P) Company of Saginaw, Michigan (DCAS 2011), issued 

on February 17, 2011. This report assesses the merit and technical basis of data and guidance 

proposed in the TBD for dose reconstructions.
Effective Date: 

November 2, 2011 

Revision No. 

 1 (Draft)

Document No. 

SCA-TR-SP2011-0036

Page No. 

 5 of 15

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

However, this report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 

Health for factual accuracy or applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82. 

2.0 INTRODUCTION 

On February, 17, 2011, NIOSH issued TBD DCAS-TKBS-0005, which provides data and 

guidance for dose reconstruction of workers at Baker-Perkins (B-P) Company of Saginaw, 

Michigan. This document supersedes the Site Profile for Atomic Employers that Refined 

Uranium and Thorium, Appendix P, of Battelle-TBD-6001 (NIOSH 2007), issued on September 

12, 2007. Appendix P to Battelle-TBD-6001 was first reviewed by SC&A in September 2010. 

The results of the SC&A review were documented in SCA-TR-SP2010-0036 (SC&A 2010). 

The intent of DCAS-TKBS-0005 is to change Battelle-TBD-6001, Appendix P, to a standalone 

document; to revise the external dose model to eliminate dependence on Battelle-TBD-6001; to 

provide more detailed descriptions of other dose models; and to incorporate review comments. 

According to the TBD, the Saginaw factory, purchased by B-P around 1919, produced the first 

“Universal” mixer, which was identified as a key piece of machinery for processing chemical 

pharmaceutical products, colors, paints, varnishes, paper pulp, cellulose, foundry sands loams, 

rubber materials, etc. In the 1950s, B-P chemical machinery business offered products that 

included heavy duty mixers for use in industrial operations. One line of continuous duty mixers 

produced by B-P was called the “Ko-Kneader.” This line of mixers was tested for use in mixing 

uranium compounds for NLO. These tests were performed on May 14–16, 1956, and the 

equipment used during the tests was decontaminated and cleaned on May 15–18 1956. 
Effective Date: 

November 2, 2011 

Revision No. 

 1 (Draft)

Document No. 

SCA-TR-SP2011-0036

Page No. 

 6 of 15

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

However, this report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 

Health for factual accuracy or applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82. 

3.0 REVIEW OF DCAS-TKBS-0005: OBSERVATIONS/FINDINGS 

DCAS-TKBS-0005 is a relatively brief document consisting of 12 pages. The following is 

SC&A’s review of that document. 

3.1 REVIEW OF SECTIONS 1.0 (INTRODUCTION), 2.0 (SITE DESCRIPTION AND 

OPERATIONAL HISTORY), AND 3.0 (PROCESS DESCRIPTION) 

Observation 1: Baker-Perkins Site Description Is Insufficient: Many questions regarding 

the Atomic Weapons Employer (AWE) operations at B-P remain open. The reader is left to 

assume that the only radioactive material on site was from this test. No guidance is provided on 

ventilation characteristics, B-P personnel that may have been in the area, or housekeeping 

practices that could aid in assigning dose. Data capture failed to identify the location of 

“Laboratory, Building 15” and its relative location to other buildings in the complex. 

3.2 REVIEW OF SECTION 4.0 (INTERNAL DOSE) 

In estimating the potential internal dose, the radionuclide intake values were based on an airsampling effort during the testing. Air-monitoring data were found in the Site Research Data 

Base (SRBD) relating to occupational internal dose during the 5 days of the testing period 

(Baker-Perkins 1991). Results of both breathing zone (BZ) and general area (GA) monitoring 

for alpha radiation (alpha scintillation) were reported. There are 26 GA samples and 14 BZ 

samples reported in the record and transcribed into a table in Attachment A. The original data 

sheets indicate that dust masks, “Dust-Foe,” were worn by test participants during four “high” 

BZ sample measurements. SC&A had the following observation concerning the original data 

sheets and derivation of the concentrations in d/m/m3. 

Observation 2: Conversion/Adjustment Factor Unaccounted for in Original Data Sheets: 

SC&A analyzed the original data sheets (Baker-Perkins 1991, pages 17–25) and found that the 

data were orderly and legible. SC&A obtained similar d/m/m3

 values as listed in the right-hand 

column of the data sheets (see example in Exhibit 1 of this report), except that the original values 

were, on the average, approximately 1.43 times greater than those derived by SC&A. An 

example of the comparison for Sample #6907 is as follows: 

d/m/m3

 = # ncpm/(Geo factor) × 1/(sample vol.) 

d/m/m3

 = 54.51 ncpm/(0.44) × 1/(0.30 m3) = 413 d/m/m3

However, the value in the last column of the data sheet is listed as 590 d/m/m3

, a factor of 

590/413 = 1.43 greater. SC&A could not locate the reason for this increased value, which was 

similar for all final concentration entries, indicating that some constant conversion or adjustment 

factor not listed on the original data sheets was used. The original data sheets did not include all 

the units in the headings (such as for “R,” “T,” “Q,” “Time,” (net) “c/min”), leaving these to be 

interpreted. Because this issue resulted in a greater concentration than that derived by SC&A, it 

was listed as an observation instead of a finding. 
Effective Date: 

November 2, 2011 

Revision No. 

 1 (Draft)

Document No. 

SCA-TR-SP2011-0036

Page No. 

 7 of 15

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

However, this report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 

Health for factual accuracy or applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82. 

The TBD identifies four job categories against which the estimate should be made: 

 The “operator” job category, consisting of personnel that were directly involved in the 

testing activities 

 The “laborer” job category, consisting of personnel that supported the testing activities 

 The “supervisor” job category, consisting of personnel that were in the operations area, 

but were not routinely involved in hands-on activities during the testing 

 The “clerical” job category, consisting of all other personnel that did not routinely enter 

the testing area 

To determine radionuclide intakes, the TBD considered a bounding estimate to assume that the 

“operators” were exposed 50% of the time to air concentrations represented by the BZ samples 

and 50% of the time to air concentrations represented by the GA samples; that the “laborers” 

were exposed 25% of the time to air concentrations represented by the BZ samples and 75% of 

the time to air concentrations represented by the GA samples; that the “supervisors” were 

exposed 100% of the time to air concentrations represented by the GA samples; and that the 

exposure of all other workers (clerical) was 10% of that of the “supervisors.” 

The document provides a Site Description and Operational History (Section 2.0) and a Process 

Description (Section 3.0). The document, however, fails to provide an account of worker 

activities (participant and non-participant) before and during the 5-day exposure period. For 

example, how many workers were employed at the time, how many workers participated in the 

testing, how the testing area was physically defined in relation to other areas of the building, 

what kind of routine activities were taking place outside the testing area, etc. This type of 

account, if it exists, could provide a rationale for the proposed job classification and the 

likelihood of the assigned exposure fractions for the job categories. 

The document claims that, “since the highest BZ samples were associated with short duration 

operations and included respirator use,” the 50% exposure for the “operator” job category to air 

concentrations represented by the BZ samples is a “bounding” estimate. SC&A finds that this 

reasoning is not sufficient to bound the “operator” job category exposure. For example, it has 

been NIOSH’s practice to not take credit for respiratory protection. Therefore, SC&A has the 

following finding regarding the overall approach taken by the TBD in estimating internal doses. 

Finding 1: Air Concentration Assignments Not Necessarily Claimant Favorable or 

Bounding

The division of potential exposures between the air concentrations represented by the BZ and 

GA samples for the four job categories is arbitrary and potentially not claimant favorable. The 

claim of a “bounding” estimate for the “operator” and consequently for the rest of the job 

categories is not demonstrated. 

Table 1 provides the intakes of uranium from inhalation to be used in the dose reconstruction for 

each workday of operation (May 14, 1956, through May 18, 1956) and for each job category. 
Effective Date: 

November 2, 2011 

Revision No. 

 1 (Draft)

Document No. 

SCA-TR-SP2011-0036

Page No. 

 8 of 15

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

However, this report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 

Health for factual accuracy or applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82. 

The air concentration estimates were also used to estimate ingestion intakes per the requirements 

of OCAS-TIB-009 (OCAS 2004). 

Table 1. Daily Intakes of Uranium 

Job Category Year Operation 

Phase Nuclide Inhalation dpm/day 

Ingestion 

dpm/day GSD 

Operations 4,126.1 86.0 

Laborers 2,456.9 51.2 

Supervisor 883.0 18.4 

Clerical 

May 14–18, 1956 Operations U-234 

88.3 1.8 

5.5 

Source: DCAS 2011, Table 1 

For the “operator” and “laborer” job categories, the geometric mean (50th percentile) of each 

dataset was determined and used in combining the BZ and GA distributions. To obtain the 

geometric mean for each dataset, the TBD used equations provided in Battelle-TIB-5000 

(Battelle 2007), using the average values of each set (3,325 dpm/m3 for BZ and 351 dpm/m3 for 

GA distributions), and the larger (5.5) of the two sets’ geometric standard deviation (GSD). For 

the “supervisor” and “clerical” job categories, the lognormal distribution of the GA dataset alone 

was used, with a geometric mean of 91 dpm/m3

. SC&A verified the above numerical values 

from the datasets shown in Attachment A. 

The implied calculations (from Battelle 2007, Section 2.1.2.4) are assumed to be as follows: 

Geometric mean (50th percentile) = Arithmetic mean × exp[-ln2(GSD)/2] 

Geometric mean (BZ) = 3,325(dpm/m3

) × exp[-ln2(5.5)/2] = 3325 × 0.2339 = 777 dpm/m3 

Geometric mean (GA) = 351(dpm/m3) × exp[-ln2(5.5)/2] = 351 × 0.2339 = 82 dpm/m3 

Radionuclide intake (operator) = [0.5 × 777 (dpm/m3

) + 0.5 × 82 (dpm/m3)] × 1.2 (m3/hr) × 

8 (hr/day) = 4,128 dpm/day 

Radionuclide intake (laborer) = [0.25 × 777 (dpm/m3

) + 0.75 × 82 (dpm/m3)] × 1.2 (m3/hr) × 

8 (hr/day) = 2,458 dpm/day 

Radionuclide intake (supervisor) = 1.0 × 91 dpm/m3

 × 1.2 (m3/hr) × 8 (hr/day) = 

883 dpm/day 

Radionuclide intake (clerical) = 0.1 × 883 (dpm/day) = 88.3 dpm/day 

SC&A was able to verify the Table 1 radionuclide intakes for all job categories using 1.2 m3/hr 

(inhalation rate), and 8 work hours per day. However, SC&A has the following findings and 

observations regarding the TBD analysis. 
Effective Date: 

November 2, 2011 

Revision No. 

 1 (Draft)

Document No. 

SCA-TR-SP2011-0036

Page No. 

 9 of 15

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

However, this report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 

Health for factual accuracy or applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82. 

Finding 2: 50th Percentile is Not Adequate

The use of the 50th percentile is not claimant favorable. NIOSH should consider using an 

alternative metric for the workers participating in the test, such as the 95th percentile. 

Observation 3: Text Needs to be Corrected: In introducing Table 1 of the TBD, the text 

incorrectly states that it presents the internal dose estimates in pCi per calendar day to be used 

for each day of operation. However, Table 1 presents the radionuclide intakes (not doses) in 

disintegrations per minute per working day (not pCi per calendar day). A correction to the text is 

needed. 

3.3 REVIEW OF SECTION 5.0 (EXTERNAL DOSE) 

 

One of the reasons for NIOSH issuing this TBD was to revise the external dose model to 

eliminate dependence on the Battelle-TBD-6001. As in the original issue (NIOSH 2007), this 

TBD (DCAS 2011) maintains that there are no external dose readings reported in the SRDB 

related to occupational external dose during the 5 days of Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) 

work at B-P, and that “at least one, but no more than two drums of orange oxide are believed to 

have been used in the tests” (Baker-Perkins 1991). 

In estimating the potential external exposure, the TBD makes the basic assumption that the 

highest external exposure potential existed when the uranium was contained in a drum, and that 

all personnel are assumed to spend their entire day 1 foot (30 cm) from a drum of uranium. The 

daily external dose recommended for use in dose reconstruction is provided in Table 2. 

Table 2. Daily External Dose 

Job Category Year Operation Phase Daily Dose Ratea

(mrem/day) 

Total Dosea

(mrem) 

All workers – Photon 1956 Operations 8.0 40 

All workers – Other Skin 1956 Operations 16 80 

All workers – Hands and Forearms 1956 Operations 164 820 

a – In this table, mrem, mR, and mrad are used interchangeably. 

Source: DCAS 2011, Table 4, page 10 

SC&A has the following findings and observations related to the basic assumptions made in the 

TBD. 

Finding 3: No Submersion Dose Considered

The TBD provides no explanation as to why the new external dose model does not include 

“submersion” dose due to uranium dust cloud potentially surrounding the test area (and main 

source for the inhalation dose estimate), or consideration of “contaminated surface” dose. 

Finding 4: Two Drums of Uranium Were Not Considered 

The TBD provides no explanation as to why the analysis does not consider photon exposure 

from two drums of uranium. 
Effective Date: 

November 2, 2011 

Revision No. 

 1 (Draft)

Document No. 

SCA-TR-SP2011-0036

Page No. 

 10 of 15

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

However, this report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 

Health for factual accuracy or applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82. 

Observation 4: Inconsistency in Internal and External Dose Estimates: There appears to be 

an inconsistency, without appropriate explanation, in defining labor categories for the internal 

dose estimate, but ignoring these categories for the external dose estimate. 

Based on the assumption that the only potential pathway for external photon dose is the direct 

dose received from the drum containing the uranium oxide, the TBD presents the methodology 

used in determining the photon dose rate to an individual standing 1 foot (30 cm) from the drum. 

This is shown to be approximately 1 mrem/hr and it is the value recommended for use in the 

dose reconstruction. SC&A has no findings or observations related to the particular 

methodology presented in determining the external photon dose. 

The TBD also presents a methodology to determine a beta dose to the skin, recognizing the 

potential of a shallow dose from exposure to open drums during drum unloading and loading, as 

well as cleaning equipment; this is shown to be approximately between 1 and 2 mrem/hr. The 

TBD recommends the use of 2 mrem/hr for the shallow dose, and the assumption that 

“production” workers spent 100% of their time 1 foot from the open drum of uranium during an 

8-hour day. SC&A has no findings related to the particular methodology presented in 

determining beta dose to the skin, but has the following observation. 

Observation 5: Inconsistency In Terminology: There appears to be an inconsistency between 

the text and Table 4 of the TBD, page 10. The text refers to the recipients of the shallow dose as 

“production” workers. Table 4 refers to these workers as “all workers.” A clarification is 

needed to avoid the inference that some non-identified group of workers is inadvertently 

introduced in the external dose estimate. 

The TBD estimates an additional shallow dose rate to the skin of hands and forearms, since these 

could realistically be closer to the uranium source. It assigns a shallow dose to hands and 

forearms of all workers to be 150 mrem/hr for 1 hour and 2 mrem/hr for the remaining 7 hours of 

the 8-hour day, as shown in Figure 1. 

Source: DCAS 2011, Figure 3, page 9 

Figure 1. Beta Dose from Yellowcake Separated from Ore for More Than 100 Days as a 

Function of Distance from the Surface 
Effective Date: 

November 2, 2011 

Revision No. 

 1 (Draft)

Document No. 

SCA-TR-SP2011-0036

Page No. 

 11 of 15

 This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

However, this report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 

Health for factual accuracy or applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82. 

NOTICE:

The TBD states that the 1-hour-per-day assumption is considered claimant favorable, since “the 

purpose of the work was to test equipment;” hence, the hands-on work would occur only while 

unloading the drum and while cleaning the equipment. SC&A has the following observation 

regarding the estimate of the dose rate to the skin of hands and forearms. 

Observation 6: Need Justification for Using 1 Hour Per Day: The explanations as to why 

the 1-hour-per-day assumption is “favorable” are not clear and, at best, qualitative. A clear 

explanation for this claim should be provided. 

3.4 REVIEW OF SECTION 6.0 (OCCUPATIONAL MEDICAL DOSE) 

According to the TBD, no documentation regarding occupational medical dose specific to B-P 

was found. The TBD recommends that the dose reconstruction is based on information provided 

in ORAUT-OTIB-0006, Dose Reconstruction from Occupationally Related Diagnostic X-Ray 

Procedures (ORAUT 2005). It also recommends that the assumed frequency for the testing 

period to be one PA chest x-ray for the year 1956. SC&A has no findings or observations related 

to the occupational medical dose. 

3.5 RESIDUAL CONTAMINATION 

The following is stated on page 5 of DCAS-TKBS-0005: 

Because all equipment was decontaminated and cleaned after the completion of 

the tests, there is no defined residual radioactivity period for the Baker-Perkins 

Company site (Stout, 1991). 

The assumption that there is little potential for significant residual contamination appears to be 

valid. The documented cleanup of the equipment and post-job air sampling indicate a careful 

effort to restore the equipment and work area to pre-test conditions, thus eliminating potential 

residual contamination and resuspension. There are no findings regarding residual 

contamination.
Effective Date: 

November 2, 2011 

Revision No. 

 1 (Draft)

Document No. 

SCA-TR-SP2011-0036

Page No. 

 12 of 15

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

However, this report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 

Health for factual accuracy or applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82. 

4.0 CONCLUSION 

 

This review has resulted in four Findings and six Observations. The main conclusion is that the 

document demonstrates that the present approach to dose reconstruction at B-P may be claimant 

favorable for some exposures, but it does not demonstrate bounding conditions and doses. For 

the internal dose analysis, contributing factors are the arbitrary and inconsistent division of labor 

and related exposure fractions, as well as a non-conservative use of the existing data. For the 

external dose analysis, there is the lack of completeness and insufficient technical bases for 

“bounding” claims.
Effective Date: 

November 2, 2011 

Revision No. 

 1 (Draft)

Document No. 

SCA-TR-SP2011-0036

Page No. 

 13 of 15

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

However, this report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 

Health for factual accuracy or applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82. 

5.0 REFERENCES 

Baker-Perkins 1991. Memo from D. Stout to A. Williams, Baker-Perkins Company 

Consideration Recommendation. February 19, 1991. [Ref ID: 09505 pp. 17–25]. 

Battelle 2007. Default Assumptions and Methods for Atomic Weapons Employer Dose 

Reconstructions, Battelle-TIB-5000, Rev. 00. April 2, 2007. 

DCAS 2011. Technical Basis Document for the Baker-Perkins Company Saginaw, Michigan, 

DCAS-TKBS-0005. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Division of 

Compensation Analysis and Support, Cincinnati, Ohio. February 17, 2011. 

NIOSH 2007. Site Profile for Atomic Employers that Refined Uranium and Thorium, 

Appendix P, to Battelle-TBD-6001. September 14, 2007. 

NRC 2002a, “Health Physics Surveys in Uranium Recovery Facilities,” Regulatory Guide 8.30, 

Rev. 1. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. May 2002. 

OCAS 2004. Estimation of Ingestion Intakes, OCAS-TIB-009, Rev. 0. National Institute for 

Occupational Safety and Health, Office of Compensation Analysis and Support, Cincinnati, 

Ohio. April 13, 2004. 

ORAUT 2005. Technical Information Bulletin: Dose Reconstruction from Occupationally 

Related Diagnostic X-Ray Procedures, ORAUT-OTIB-0006, Rev. 03 PC-1. Oak Ridge 

Associated Universities Team, Cincinnati, Ohio. December 21, 2005. 

SC&A 2010. Review of the NIOSH Site Profile for Baker-Perkins, Saginaw, Michigan, BattelleTBD-6001, Appendix P, SCA-TR-SP2010-0036, Rev. 0. SC&A, Vienna, Virginia, and Saliant, 

Inc., Jefferson, Maryland. September 15, 2010. 

Stout, D., 1991. Baker-Perkins Company Consideration Recommendation with Site Summary, 

February 19, 1991. SRDB Ref ID: 9505. 
Effective Date: 

November 2, 2011 

Revision No. 

 1 (Draft)

Document No. 

SCA-TR-SP2011-0036

Page No. 

 14 of 15

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

However, this report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 

Health for factual accuracy or applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82. 

ATTACHMENT A: AIR SAMPLE DATA FROM 

ANALYTICAL DATA SHEETS 

(Baker-Perkins 1991) 

Page Date Bkgnd 

cpm 

Geo Sample 

No Time Type R T Q Gross Counts 

Count 

Time 

Net 

Cts/min d/m/m3

25 5/14/1956 0.27 0.40 6900 12:37 GA 0.02 10 0.20 7 15.3 0.19 3 

25 5/14/1956 0.27 0.40 6901 13:28 GA 0.02 10 0.20 14 15 0.66 12 

25 5/14/1956 0.27 0.40 6902 15:00 BZ 0.02 3.5 0.07 32 0.29 110.1 5,616 

25 5/14/1956 0.27 0.40 6903 BZ 0.02 3.5 0.07 32 0.97 32.72 1,669 

25 5/14/1956 0.27 0.40 6904 BZ 0.02 3.5 0.07 640 2.32 275.6 14,061 

25 5/14/1956 0.27 0.40 6905 GA 0.02 10 0.20 32 0.21 152 2,714 

24 5/14/1956 0.19 0.44 6906 15:32 GA 0.02 12 0.24 32 1.56 20.32 276 

23 5/15/1956 0.19 0.44 6907 8:39 GA 0.02 15 0.30 32 0.585 54.61 590 

23 5/15/1956 0.19 0.44 6908 8:39 GA 0.02 15 0.30 32 10.47 2.87 31 

23 5/15/1956 0.19 0.44 6909 9:03 GA 0.02 10 0.20 32 4.82 6.45 106 

23 5/15/1956 0.19 0.44 6910 9:03 GA 0.02 10 0.20 32 8.88 3.41 55 

22 5/15/1956 0.19 0.44 6911 9:19 GA 0.02 10 0.20 32 1.81 17.49 284 

22 5/15/1956 0.19 0.44 6912 BZ 0.02 5 0.10 32 0.22 145.3 4716 

22 5/15/1956 0.19 0.44 6913 BZ 0.02 2.5 0.05 640 2.97 215.3 13981 

22 5/15/1956 0.19 0.44 6914 Control 0.02 3 15 0.01 

21 5/15/1956 0.19 0.44 6915 11:19 GA 0.02 15 0.30 32 8.35 3.64 39 

21 5/15/1956 0.19 0.44 6916 11:19 GA 0.02 15 0.30 13 15 0.68 7 

21 5/15/1956 0.19 0.44 6917 GA 0.02 12 0.24 32 7.27 4.21 57 

21 5/15/1956 0.19 0.44 6918 GA 0.02 12 0.24 32 8.45 3.6 49 

20 5/15/1956 0.13 0.46 6919 BZ 0.02 2 0.04 17 14.44 1.06 82 

20 5/15/1956 0.13 0.46 6920 BZ 0.02 2.5 0.05 20 11.59 1.6 99 

20 5/15/1956 0.13 0.46 6921 13:31 GA 0.02 20 0.40 20 12.08 1.53 12 

20 5/15/1956 0.13 0.46 6922 GA 0.02 20 0.40 20 8.16 2.32 18 

20 5/15/1956 0.13 0.46 6923 BZ 0.02 3 0.06 20 2.73 7.2 373 

20 5/15/1956 0.13 0.46 6924 BZ 0.02 5 0.10 20 1.11 17.89 556 

19 5/16/1956 0.13 0.46 6925 GA 0.02 10 0.20 20 6.78 2.82 44 

19 5/16/1956 0.13 0.46 6926 11:15 P 0.02 2 0.04 13 19.69 0.53 41 

19 5/16/1956 0.13 0.46 6927 11:19 P 0.02 1 0.02 8 16.79 0.35 54 

19 5/16/1956 0.13 0.46 6928 12:07 GA 0.02 15 0.30 20 9.8 1.91 20 

19 5/16/1956 0.13 0.46 6929 GA 0.02 15 0.30 20 10.79 1.72 18 

19 5/16/1956 0.13 0.46 6930 GA 0.02 20 0.40 20 20.88 0.83 6 

19 5/16/1956 0.13 0.46 6931 GA 0.02 20 0.40 20 2.39 8.24 64 

18 5/18/1956 0.19 0.44 6932 9:03 GA 0.02 15 0.30 32 0.88 36.17 391 

18 5/18/1956 0.19 0.44 6933 BZ 0.02 3 0.06 32 1.25 26.41 1375 

18 5/18/1956 0.19 0.44 6934 BZ 0.02 2 0.04 32 2.16 14.62 1187 

18 5/18/1956 0.19 0.44 6935 GA 0.02 15 0.30 32 1.41 22.51 244 

18 5/18/1956 0.19 0.44 6936 BZ 0.02 2.5 0.05 32 4.38 7.12 462 

18 5/18/1956 0.19 0.44 6937 BZ 0.02 4 0.08 32 1.49 21.29 864 

17 5/18/1956 0.19 0.44 6938 BZ 0.02 3 0.06 32 1.14 27.88 1509 

17 5/18/1956 0.19 0.44 6939 9:44 GA 0.02 15 0.30 32 0.21 152.2 1647 

17 5/18/1956 0.19 0.44 6940 GA 0.02 25 0.50 32 0.16 213.1 1384 

17 5/18/1956 0.19 0.44 6941 p 0.02 1 0.02 32 15 1.01 164 

17 5/18/1956 0.19 0.44 6942 12:35 GA 0.02 22 0.44 32 0.91 34.97 258 

17 5/18/1956 0.19 0.44 6943 14:17 GA 0.02 20 0.40 32 2.45 12.87 104 

The following definitions of parameters were assumed: 

Parameter Definition

Page Data sheet page number 

Sample No Sample number 

Geo Geometry factor for detector 

Time Time of day sampling started 

Type GA and BZ for General Area and Breathing Zone 

R Air sampler flow rate in cubic meters per minute. 

T Sampling duration in minutes 

Q Sampled volume in m3

Cts/min Counts per minute 

d/m/m3 Disintegrations per minute per cubic meter of air sampled 
Effective Date: 

November 2, 2011 

Revision No. 

 1 (Draft)

Document No. 

SCA-TR-SP2011-0036

Page No. 

 15 of 15

 This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

However, this report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 

Health for factual accuracy or applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82. 

EXHIBIT 1: ANALYTICAL DATA SHEET 

Stout 1991, SRDB Ref ID: 9505, page 19 

NOTICE: